Does this mean all anti-same sex marriage laws are invalidated?

This decision came from a federal court. Does that mean marriage is now legal in all 50 states?

but the reasoning is available everywhere.

For this to apply across the country, it must be appealed to the Supreme Court and we must win again.

And that's the next level up.

Other districts are not bound by that one.

Nevada, Oregon, etc?

You can see the individual District boundaries on that map (the boundaries divide some of the states, such as California and Georgia).

The decision applies to the specific action only - which was a suit brought against Prop 8 in California.

Had this been in a Circuit (e.g., the 9th), each District Court in each state in the 9th would have binding precedent stating that a ban on gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

The decision only strikes down Prop 8.

the 9th circuit has lots of smaller districts...

This ruling is precedent-setting within the district. Edited to add--it takes effect across CA because the state is an intervenor, though.....

It is not binding, but must be considered in another district within the same circuit, generally as 'persuasive' absent major flaw. (this would be considered 'binding' in a district that has CA in it, but not in, say, OR.)

Out of the circuit, is not binding, and not 'persuasive', but should be considered.

Those are the MOST 'religious'/'Catholic' countries and it's OK by them?

Who is RUNNING this country?

Pardon my caps. Shouting to myself, I guess.

And yes, it's disgusting.

:wow:

Prop. 8 was passed in CA, so it affects all of CA. He only invalidated Prop. 8.

On edit, the forgot the State was an intervenor....so it applies state-wide, not just in the federal district.

The statute is now void, completely. The alternative (different constitutions in the same state) would be too chaotic.

Because the State of CA is an intervenor it is across the state of CA. I forgot it wasn't just the fundy bastards.....

Otherwise, it would only be district-wide.

Federal judges have the authority to void law that violates the U.S. Constitution. Judicial interpretations of law can perhaps vary by District, but not the constitutionality.

SCOTUS is called on to resolve it.

Here, you had the State of CA called as an intervenor--so the state is the boundary of the decision, as opposed to merely the judicial district.

disagreement that affects whole states, not parts of states. It just seems like bad policy to allow a state law's or constitution's applicability vary within that state (if held void by a federal judge).

I'm sure this is settled legal doctrine but I'm not certain either way (perhaps you are, in which case the source would be helpful in ending this subthread).

At least, the federal courts TRY to avoid that....

As for legal source, I can only reference my first day of judicial procedure.

And this issue must come up any time a District judge in a multiple District state rules a state law or constitutional provision is unconstitutional.

Now I won't be able to sleep until this is definitively answered.

Because the State of CA was a party, this decision 'crosses districts' and the 'boundary' of the decision is the state of CA.

Normally, when an individual state is not a party (think federal civil case, or fed. criminal pros.) then decisions are bounded in the district, and follow the precedent rules I outlined above.

Trust me.

if it's that settled, providing a source (other than yourself) should not be that difficult.

I'm not saying I know you are wrong or that I'm right. But the only person who gets by with "trust me" when it comes to legal interpretation is a judge (in his or her courtroom).

and not just the federal district it was filed in?

Because the State is a party. The whole State. States can't partition themselves. They are, in fact, the Defense, but let's face it, they acted more like an intervenor, (which is how I characterize them upthread) and the actual party-in-interest are the Mormons and the other Prop 8 proponents. But that's a side issue.

I suggest you read the commentary on FRCP 17 as to the nature of a 'party.' Start with that cite.

As to your other questions, you can read up on horizontal and vertical precedent and stare decisis. Now, some lawyers would disagree with my analysis of horizontal precedent on the district level, but that's an internecine argument.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking beyond that, if anything.

in some parts of California but not others?

1) I apologize....I reread some of my posts upthread and realized that replying to too many threads at once, combined with my dinner wine, may have lead to some confusion, and my being very sloppy with terms. Bad. Sorry. So let me answer you in full.


2) If the state were not involved in this lawsuit, then the district court decision would only apply within the district. **** BUT---

3) The state MUST be involved in this lawsuit, as it's a state law....and that's probably a tautology. Welcome to the law.

4) I had a brain fart upthread, and called the state an 'intervenor'. They are not. They are the actual Defense, although they punted and let the intervenors (the prop 8 assholes) do all the heavy lifting. Sorry--I think that caused some confusion because of my sloppiness.


****Lots of lawyers would argue with me until the cows come home about horizontal precedent on the district level. And I would agree that my Cliff Notes version of HP is highly variable, but not on cases like this one, i.e., a Big One, where you aren't going to get another lawsuit at the DC level. The bite from the apple took place, and it's going up to the appellate level now, where the only question will be how long it will take.

So when the federal constitutionality of a state law or constitutional provision is at issue, the state itself must be a party, thereby binding the entire state?

That works (and would clear up any problems of effectively having multiple versions of a constitution in a state).

And it is then the job of the State Attorney General*** to mount a defense.

Here, you had a weird case. The Plaintiffs (Perry and crew) sued the State....but the State AG (Jerry Brown) really didn't disagree with them. So the court granted 'intervenor' status to the proponents of Prop 8, because they (rightly) argued that their interests and claims would not be properly presented by the State AG.

Had the court NOT allowed intervenor status, you can bet that every single winger group in CA would have filed motions, and their own lawsuits...so the court was smart. Effectively, all proponent interests were put, like eggs, into one basket.

So the case basically became the intervenors and the Plaintiffs, with the actual Defendant (the State) phoning it in...

I do apologize for not being clearer, upthread.

***This is analogous to the Solicitor General position on the federal side.

This is but one step on the way toward equality.

The ruling has already been appealed. It will be heard at the circuit court level, and then at the USSC.

It's a terrific step, and that the judge saw through the flimsy "arguments" of the bigots is certainly heartening, but it's just one step.

saw the answer in thread above.

It's a pretty good legal precedent for a lawyer to cite when he or she challenges bigotry in another state.